tl;dr. I did read the first few paragraphs.

Significant findings in what I did read:

Somehow parent poster managed to mistake grand-parent's position with regard to using the innie-or-outie barycenter as a point of distinction between a moon and a binary planet. GP was very definitely saying that such a distinction was pointless. Which seems to also be what PP is trying to argue. Which suggests that much of PP can be ignored; it is preaching to the choir but for some reason its author has been unable to see that. Perhaps his mind, which apparently is pretty clear much of the time when dealing with astronomy, was clouded by his emotions. Which do come through very strongly in PP.

However the following calls for a comment:

While PP and GP agree on the absurdity of all this, PP is not seeing the importance that GP sees in the affects of promulgating this crap.

GP's concern is that astronomy has a duty (as does every science) to present its truths clearly to everyone outside of its small scientific community. It cannot dismiss absurd representations in its jargon as unimportant by arguing that all astronomers can see the fallacies and just ignore them. That is a travesty; astronomy needs to provide college students, high school students, grade school students, and kindergarteners with an accurate representation of its findings and not some mumbo-jumbo absurdity like what PP has so eloquently described above.

This is all the more poignant since the IAU brought this whole foolish argument up because in the wisdom of their final hours of their last big confab after many members had left to catch the bus home, they expressedly attacked the current state of general understanding of what defines a planet or a moon and replaced it with an even more absurd set of definitions meant for public consumption. To replace what has been taught in the schools. And now through posts like PP the community of astronomers are attempting to backpedal by claiming that none of this makes any difference anyway, since WE all know what we are talking about.

What arrogant bullshit.

IAU: you and you alone have the power to fix this mess that was made on your doorstep, in your name. Figure out what it is that should be taught to the youngsters today who might choose to take advanced astronomy courses tomorrow. Then make that public, with your full support behind it.

The naturalists who originated the phrase would have said

"Theory of mind refers to the ability to simulate the minds of other beings to deduce things about their future behavior".

There are complex behaviors in many species that can only be explained by assuming that one individual is able to put itself into the headspace of another and so anticipate what that other individual is about to do. This sometimes involves a definite sense of how the world must appear to the other. There is irrefutable evidence of this working between members of the same species in cooperative hunting, and also between species, between predator and prey. Perhaps all mammals have this-- certainly those that hunt in prides and packs, and those that form flocks and herds, exhibit theory of mind.

One of the most significant aspects of theory of mind is that it is present in species that have no language, and thus no culture and no clear way of thinking out "If I do this, he is going to do that, because where he is he cannot see that my partner is waiting for him to do that. Whoopee! We got ourselves some lunch!" Whatever theory of mind is, it should not be confused with this very simple mental model. For this kind of reasoning is merely mimicking what theory of mind is doing without any rational means of doing it.

Theory of mind strongly implies that there are mechanisms other than rational thought that can allow a human being to perceive and react appropriately to things in their environment, and do so in some very sophisticated ways. The really interesting questions that this raises include how could a person become rationally sensitive to the findings he obtains through theory of mind? In other words, how can rational thought be extended to include intuition as another way of perception that is akin to vision or hearing?

Empathy and theory of mind are related, for sure, but they might be very distant cousins.

Theory of mind is a term used to describe the ability some species have where individuals behave as if they can put themselves into the minds of others. Lions exhibit it when one lioness will deliberately allow itself to be seen and in doing so cause the herd of antelope to move into the ambush that has been set up by other females in the pride. Each participating huntress is somehow aware of how the prey is likely to react and also what the others in the pride are going to be doing-- and all this "putting myself in the mind of another" is done without any verbal skills. Or for that matter without any non-verbal specific communication signals that persons who study lions have been able to identify.

The visible differences in gender in lions is very distinct. There is no way that an adult male lion and female lion could be mistaken for each other. The females show a strong theory of mind in the way they hunt in cooperation, but the males do not participate in that (though during early adulthood they hunt as individuals). The differences between gender in humans is also very distinct. It could be that the human adoption of language has overlaid similar innate gender differences in the use of theory of mind. But underlying innate differences could explain a lot of human behavior.

Not saying anything new with this, but merely reframing what any of us a few years beyond puberty already know: groups of men and women do have very different approaches to problems. As a general statement with numerous exceptions, women seem to be more involved in theory of mind activities. Perhaps men's lack of involvement in those permits them to incorporate more inanimate objects into human culture, like learning how to shape rocks into better scraping tools, or build Internets so they can more widely broadcast their ignorance about what it is really all about....

There does seem to be a strong gender difference in how groups of men and women go about solving problems. It is probably innate and probably has something to do with our clear sexual dimorphism extending beyond our physical appearance into how our minds work.

I have read your post and understand that it is, alas, representative of contemporary astronomy's position wrt the pairing of the Earth and Moon as not being significantly different from, say, the pairing of Mars and Phobos.

But I take solace in the fact that the Moon is spiralling away from the Earth and long before the death of the Sun makes all this insignificant, the Earth and Moon will, in fact, become a binary planet. According to the precepts of contemporary astronomy.

It does seem extremely odd that what will become true in the future is considered false at present. Especially as the increase in distance that will make the Earth - Moon a binary planet will also diminish the now powerful effects each has upon the other.

The alchemists did something like this, on the road to the periodic table of the elements. So it could definitely be a useful way to develop telescopic science.

In a few decades we could then make a distinction between astronomers who accept a rationally based taxonomy of orbital objects, and "alastronomers" whose thought processes are mired in the old school searches for definitions that make distinctions between Pluto, Ceres, etc and Mercury, Mars, etc. Not to mention the hair-splitting the alastronomers use to keep from admitting that the Earth and Moon are a binary planet such that the orbit of either one around Sol has a strong sinusoidal component.

They will be known as "midget planets", I would think.

Except for the ones that are larger than Earth. Those will be taxonomy busters.

You realize that you are implying that the astronomers who voted in the current astronomical definition of planet are all either psuedo-scientists or charlatans?

That raises some very serious thought-provoking questions. IMHO, using only common sense and no optical assistance mechanisms, it looks to me like they are probably pseudo-scientists, and not charlatans.

Seeing these protuberances on slashdot perturbs me a little. But I would be seriously perturbed to see protuberances of astronomical size.

It is useful right now, and has been for several years within the communities where doxing has become a known problem. It is a jargon word that is gaining mainstream use simply because the mainstream is now beginning to see a significant increase in the behavior it describes.

A similar term, "outing" (as in "John was deliberated outed last week by Jim, his ex lover") has been in use among the LBGT communities since at least the 1950s. But that refers explicitly to making public someone's very private sexual orientation.

However "doxing" is different from "outing": it is a more general term describing the unauthorized release of anyone's private information in a public forum. It is rarely an honorable act and in general those who dox others are persons without honor. And the honor of those who condone doxing is questionable. People who dox, or show support for doxing, are people you cannot trust. You should not associate with them, either, since that will raise questions about your personal honor.

"Doxing" is a concept that needs to come into the mainstream, right now.

The most practical solution for most persons is to get contacts that correct for distant vision, and use $10.00USD drugstore reading glasses for close up work. The readers are cheap enough that it makes sense to buy a couple of pair of different strengths: 1.50, 1.75, and 2.25 (jewelry work, etc).

I have one toric lens contact for mild astigmatism. If I'm laying on my side for a while to work on the car or take a nap, my vision will be strange for a minute or so when I straighten up. They might not be the best choice for someone into extreme sports, figure skating with lots of high speed twirling, aerobatic pilots, etc.

I have been near sighted since early grade school, needing pretty strong correction. I have probably used more than 100 prescription glasses over the years, including various bifocals and progressives.

I did okay with my first pair of bifocals, from about age 40 to 45. I was building custom computer systems and repairs, so a mix of close-up bench work and general vision.

Between 45 and 50 I was doing more classroom and group support and the bifocals were not working well for this. I was having to do a lot of middle distance work as well as close up and far distance. The job required standing at the back of the room and scanning client/student computer screens where distances ranged from 4 feet to 30 feet. Shifting focus in those middle distances was very fatiguing, which made me grumpier than my usual lovely self, which did not win awards from the managers. Fatigue from eyestrain can develop without you being aware of it; you might have a kind-of, sort-of headache or you might just get more obnoxious without realizing what's happening.

Progressives worked well for me, after I deliberately set out to learn how to use them. Your neck gets more of a workout, since you need to tilt your head to bring things into focus. It takes a few days of deliberate practice to get the habit. It is not natural for humans, though I'm told that it is common in other species. Horses were mentioned. I never really looked into it. Once I learned how to use them they were a delight: I never before had such good vision at all distances.

I am now retired. I wear contact lenses set for distance vision and carry reading glasses with me. I still have progressives as a backup. The contacts are partly vanity: near-sighted eye glasses make the eyes look a little smaller than is natural, in a sort of reverse-cute ugliness. But mostly the contacts are better for photography and outdoor sports (I can wear proper hazard glasses when bicycling, etc).

TL,DR SUMMARY: Progressive lenses require doing some training to learn to position your head correctly for different distances. They are very much worth the effort if one is constantly having to shift between middle distance viewing as well as far and near. For photography, hiking, bicycling, kayaking, etc the best is contacts set to make one mildly far sighted, and carry reading glasses.

You are thinking about it wrong.

The problem is that we are taking carbon that had been in a long term CO2 cycle of millions of years and injecting it into our daily CO2 cycle, and that is very disruptive.

The proposed solution is to move more carbon from the daily CO2 cycle into cycles that are measured in tens of thousands of years. Specifically, into the forest ecosystem cycles. Rebuilding the great forests of the Americas, Europe, and Asia will eventually stabilize the excess CO2 we have already generated. There probably is no other way to do it.

It would mean learning to manage the world as a forest. We can probably do that. Yeah, I think we could figure that out. Maybe.

Biochar converts roughly 1/3rd of the dry woody input to charcoal through pylorisis, the rest is consumed-- often as the fire that heats the retort. Biochar is charcoal that preserves the microstructures of the plants. Of itself, when added to soil, it is basically chemically inert and stable for 10k+ years. However its physical structure retains water and many plant nutrients like a sponge, and it acts as a slow release reservoir that benefits crops.

The biochar structure also acts like a reef providing microenvironments that foster rich and complex soil ecologies. So in addition to the carbon directly "sequestered" in making biochar, there is also the increased carbon absorbed by the enriched soil ecology.

A deciduous forest dumps tons of dead leaves every autumn. These leaves naturally compost, in a process broadly similar to biochar production but over a period of a couple of years where biochar batches are done in a couple of hours. The end result is the same though: a fraction of the carbon in the fallen leaves becomes a chemically inert but highly structured physical ammendment to the forest soil.

So far as I know, no one has attempted as yet to quantify how much more biomass biochar or compost produces when it is added to a soil. As a wild ass guess, perhaps in a poplar forest every year every 10 tons of autumn leaves produces 1.5 tons of finished compost (with the rest of the carbon leaving as CO2 during the winter rotting period). Between the inorganic soluble nutrients retained as the leaves rot, and the physical improvements with respect to drainage and environments conducive to soil microbes, the compost will at least double the amount of carbon that is "sequestered". So (again as a WAG) an acre or so of poplar forest that produces 10 tons of dry dead leaves each year could be sequestering 3 tons of carbon each year. Every year. For thousands of years.

"Sequestered" as used in the above refers to carbon that is removed from the daily CO2 cycle to some longer term cycle that is measurable in tens of thousands of years. These would be the lifetimes of entire forest ecologies. What we have been doing for the last century or so is moving carbon from very long term cycles of millions of years and pumping it into the daily CO2 cycle. What we can do (we've got the technology yaddayadda) is move more carbon from the daily CO2 cycle into cycles of 10k+ years. It is a matter of identifying the forest types that are best for over-all carbon absorption and then getting down on our knees and planting some trees.

Creating biochar from woody vegetation sequesters carbon for up to tens of thousands of years. The stuff is also a great soil ammendment. About 33% of the carbon in woody waste can be converted to biochar. This is charcoal in a form that is biochemically inert but with physical structures that, like reefs, promote a rich ecology-- but in the soil rather than in sea water.

It is reasonable to presume that naturally composting woody vegetation on the forest floor is undergoing a process of conversion that is broadly similar to biochar manufacture, though much slower: a couple of years as opposed to a couple of hours. That suggests that for every 10 tons of forest litter generated in a year, somewhere between 1 and 3 tons is sequestered as the final product of composting after a year or two.

It is not too long a step from this to recognizing that the more vibrant soil ecologies of a forest are holding a lot more carbon in the form of microorganisms than can be found in corn fields or wheat fields. While that is not "sequestered" in the same way as biochar, carbon in those ecosystems is removed from the daily CO2 cycle (by moving it into cycles measured in 10k years).

The summary: planting trees, especially deciduous in climates with a cold season, does "sequester" carbon for the long term (in the sense that carbon is moved from the daily CO2 cycle to much longer CO2 cycles). While only a fraction of the carbon in a dead tree is "sequestered" in that way, there are multipliers in the soil ecosystems that significantly increase the amount of carbom removed from the daily cycle.

Go plant a tree. At present it is the best thing a person can do to directly counter the increasing CO2 levels.